--- In
cybalist@egroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Håkan Lindgren
> To: Cybalist
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:36 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Constructed or natural
>
> I don't particularly care for the term "conlang"; it suggests a
secret language spoken by con-people.
>
> My hunch is exactly the same as Hakan's -- Thomas has invented both
Melanaq and the "large valley" legend, and is pulling our collective
leg by provoking this discussion. The crystal-clear algebraic
regularity of its morphological structure betrays a language that has
never evolved naturally, accumulating the usual historical mess. It's
only in conlangs that morphology doesn't interact with phonology! The
fact that there's absolutely no reference to Melanaq anywhere makes
this suspicion a virtual certainty.
>
> Piotr
>
>
You think very highly of me! I assure you I've never had the time to
invent a language. I'm a student of biochemistry and never cared
about
linguistics before I encountered this one in 1992. The woman I got
it
from, however, was extremely interested in languages, so she must
have invented it and put in some European words. I also believed that
it was constructed, but I could never be sure. Now I am and can
change
it to my own liking without wrecking a part of history. I expected
the
respons I got here, and I'm sorry it provoked you.
Håkan's remark that it was one of the most well constructed
languages
he's ever seen is interesting to me, because it explains why it was
given to me in the first place. It could be decades of development
behind it. Now I will withdraw from all discussions about Melanaq,
since I've got the answers I needed.
PS: Still after 8 years, I don't even know it well enough to write
a diary with it.